Russian forces could push over the border into northern Ukraine after regaining occupied territory
Ukraine’s cross-border offensive into Russia’s Kursk region was a mistake that could lead to further loss of territory, military analysts believe, as troops pull out after a seven-month occupation.
Ukrainian soldiers described a chaotic and perilous withdrawal under enemy fire over the past week, which some compared to the battle of Debaltseve in 2015, when government forces were routed by pro-Russian separatists.
One serviceman told the BBC the retreat was akin to “a scene from a horror movie” with the roads out of Kursk lined with vehicles and bodies. “There are a lot of wounded and dead,” they said.
Kyiv acknowledged on Sunday that Russia had retaken the town of Sudzha, the largest population centre that was under Ukrainian control in Kursk, but claimed fighting was continuing elsewhere in the region.
But Ukrainian soldiers and open source conflict monitors said the withdrawal is almost complete.
“The Kursk operation is essentially over,” an intelligence officer told The New York Times. US think-tank the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) assessed on Sunday that Ukraine controls about 100 sq km of Russian territory – a fraction of more than 1,300 sq km it held at the peak of the incursion last year.
John Helin of the Black Bird Group, a Finnish open source investigative unit tracking the war, said Ukraine now risks losing more of its own territory.
“Ukraine has almost entirely withdrawn its forces, or been pushed out, of Kursk,” he told The i Paper. “They are basically controlling a tiny sliver of ground right next to the border, if even that.”
FILE PHOTO: FILE PHOTO: A Ukrainian serviceman patrols a street next to buildings damaged during fighting between Ukrainian and Russian forces in the Ukrainian-controlled town of Sudzha in Russia's Kursk region, August 16, 2024. REUTERS/Yan Dobronosov/File Photo
A Ukrainian serviceman patrols a street in Sudzha, Kursk last summer (Photo: Yan Dobronosov/Reuters)
“Considering the force that Russia assembled for their offensive in Kursk, they will likely push over the border into Sumy. In places the Russians have already crossed the border and captured villages.”
Analysts point to the introduction of North Korean soldiers to the battle as a factor in Russian gains, while Ukrainian officials have said the brief suspension of US intelligence support had a damaging effect at a critical time.
The ISW reported that Ukrainian forces unusually did not use Himars rocket launchers that rely on US targeting information during fighting in Kursk after the White House cut off access.
Experts also point to Russia securing control of Ukraine’s supply lines and its deployment of superior air power, as well as bold manoeuvres such as the infiltration of Ukrainian-held territory through a disused gas pipeline earlier this month.
“This allowed them to penetrate kilometres behind the Ukrainian positions,” said Colonel Markus Reisner, an Austrian military officer who studies Russia’s armed forces at the Theresian Military Academy. “This was a nasty surprise for the Ukrainians.”
Ukrainian casualty figures over the course of the Kursk offensive are hotly disputed and cannot be independently verified, with both sides claiming to have inflicted heavy casualties on the other.
But Kyiv deployed at least elements of elite units to the cross-border offensive, which have suffered losses, while Ukrainian military bloggers acknowledged the loss of valuable US equipment such as M777 artillery guns and an M1 Abrams tank in the retreat from Kursk.
Such losses could prove costly at a time of shortages in manpower and hardware elsewhere on the front line, believes Dr Marina Miron, a military analyst of the Defence Studies Department at King’s College London, who suggests the Kursk offensive will prove a damaging misstep.
“It benefited the Russians a lot to have the Ukrainian troops stretched out,” she said. “I think for Ukraine it’s been a strategic mistake, the consequences of which we are going to see.”
“It was a waste of troops and equipment that might have been able to offer more assistance in the Donbas, or prevent the Russians from entering Toretsk,” she said, referring to a region and town in eastern Ukraine where Russia has made gains since the Kursk offensive.
Reisner said the goals of the offensive were “too ambitious” and could lead to further losses.
“Everything now depends on whether the Ukrainians can withdraw in an orderly fashion and whether they can be caught by their own forces that have been deployed,” he said. “If neither of these is the case, it is quite possible that the Russians will simply continue to advance until they meet a stable line of defence again.”
Mykola Bielieskov, a military analyst at the government-run National Institute for Strategic Studies in Kyiv, said there were public relations as well as military reasons for the offensive, as Volodymyr Zelensky sought to rally support from allies for his “Victory Plan” last summer, demonstrating that Ukraine could still go on the offensive and embarrassing the Kremlin.
Bielieskov acknowledged the operation fell short of its aims but added that Kyiv did not have the option of avoiding risk, as its position deteriorated on the battlefield.
“People who rightly criticise our actions in Kursk miss the point. We did not have the luxury of passively waiting. We did something risky and unconventional [and] it did not deliver strategically in a way we might have expected,” he said. “Only those who do nothing are always right.”